Upload
nguyenthuan
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
• A casenote:• Is a scholarly report of a recent,
significant decision• Is a concise analysis of an opinion• Contains citations to related cases and
important secondary authorities
What is a Casenote?
Sections of a Casenote
I. IntroductionA. Lead ParagraphB. BackgroundC. Roadmap
II. Prior Law and Perspective
III. Main CaseIV. AnalysisV. Conclusion
I. Introduction
Engage the reader with a sentence, quote, or hypothetical that will pique the reader’s interest
Paint a broad thumbnail sketch with a literarily broad brush
Identify the basic issues and themes, setting the stage for what will follow
Tell the reader why the primary case is important
A. Background
Give a brief description of relevant law leading up to the casenote’s topic
Put the lead case in perspective Be specific as to the trend that you are
focusing on, while setting out relevant facts of your case
B. Roadmap
Explain the structure of your casenote Preview the recent development and the prior
law, while simultaneously identifying the gravamen of your analysis
Does this development extend the trend or break new ground? Does it clarify the relevant area of law? Is it a new approach to the same problem?
II. Prior Law
Set out the legal history leading to the recent development discussed in your casenote
Identify the important cases, statutes, and secondary sources in the area
Organize by approaches, not by cases When discussing case law, discern what is
necessary and what is not necessary (e.g., procedural posture, critical facts, reasoning, etc.)
III. Main Case
Identify significant facts, procedural posture, and parties in detail
Elaborate as to how this case came about and state its impact on prior law
Briefly describe the majority and, if any, concurring or dissenting opinions in your case
IV. Analysis
Here, your creativity and argument emerges Synthesize the prior law in the area Elaborate as to how your position reverses,
extends, or deviates from prior law Incorporate analysis lower courts’ majority
and dissenting opinions Note any implications & potential criticisms of
your argument
V. Conclusion
Give a big-picture perspective Do not introduce new material or arguments Flow smoothly from your previous analysis
without simply regurgitating it to the reader
• As in a law school exam, this is the most important part of the casenote—so make it count
• This is important for a variety of reasons
Writing the Analysis Section
Types of Arguments
The court was right or wrong and for specific reasons
The court did not really accomplish anything The court properly applied or misapplied prior
law or the statute What do you think the court should have done? What will the Court do? (where it has yet to
decide the case)
Helpful Examples of Legal Writing
Laurence H. Tribe, Death by a Thousand Cuts: Constitutional Wrongs Without Remedies After Wilkie v. Robbins, 2007 CATO SUP. CT. REV. 23 (2007).
Frank H. Easterbrook & Daniel R. Fischel, The Proper Role of a Target’s Management in Responding to a Tender Offer, 94 HARV. L. REV. 1161 (1981).
John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 YALE L.J. 920 (1973).
Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890).
Tips from Writing Dean’s Fellows
• Writing Dean’s Fellows are available through the last day of classes to look over writing samples and offer areas where your writing is strong and areas where you could improve.
Tips from Successful Participants
• Additionally, all of the winning casenotes from last year’s UMLRWriting Competition will be made available on the UMLR website after finals.
• For purposes o f the wr i t ing compet i t ion, Bluebooking can count for as much as one- fourth o f your score .
• Even i f you do not part ic ipate in the wr i t ing compet i t ion, s trong Bluebooking is crucia l for the law rev iew edi t ing process
• Use the index!
Bluebooking
Bluebooking Cases: The Basics
United Housing Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Forman et al., 421 U.S. 837, 837 (1975).
General: Rule 10.1 (page 88) 4 Basic Elements: Party Names: Rule 10.2 (p. 89) Reporter: Rule 10.3 (p. 95) and T.1 (p. 215) Year: Rule 10.5 (p. 99) Short Cites: Rule 10.9 (page 107)
Bluebooking Cases: The Basics
Distinguishing Party Names in Text and in Citations: Used As Text (Rule 10.2): In United Housing
Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, the Court held that . . . Only abbreviate according to Rule 10.2.1(c) (p. 91).
Full Citation in Footnotes (Rule 10.2): United Hous. Found., Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 837 (1975). Remember to abbreviate according to T.6 (p. 430)!
As a Short Citation in Footnotes (Rule 10.9): United Hous. Found., 421 U.S. at 844.
Bluebooking Cases: The Basics
Short Cites (Rule 10.9) The Five Footnote Rule: If a case is cited within the five
preceding footnotes, you can short cite. This includes any citation in a parenthetical. However,
you may not use “id.” for a cite in a parenthetical
Ex. Thompson v. Byers, 555 U.S. 987, 999 (2008) (quoting McGuane v. Fitzgibbons, 400 U.S. 22, 28 (1975)). An “id.” may not be used for McGuane v. Fitzgibbons. McGuane v. Fitzgibbons may be short cited within the
next five footnotes. However, an “id.” may be used for Thompson v. Byers.
Bluebooking Law Review Articles
Author’s Full Name in Ordinary Roman, Name of the Article in Italics, 23 LAW REVIEW IN SMALLCAPS 122, 125 (2013). Rule 16 (p. 147). Author’s name as it appears in article. Title, capitalized according to Rule 8 (p. 84) but not
abbreviating or omitting words. The 23 here is the volume number; the 122 here is the
page at which the article begins; the 125 is the pincite. The name of the law review or journal should be
abbreviated according to T.13 (p. 444). The year goes in parentheses.
Bluebooking Law Review Articles
Robert C. Ellickson, Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute Resolution Among Neighbors in Shasta County, 38 STAN. L. REV. 623, 633 (1986). Include the “C” in Robert C. Ellickson—if the author
maintained it. If the title was “Of Coase & Cattle,” you should keep the “&.” The title should appear as it appears in the article. Include
the subtitle. Stanford Law Review abbreviated as shown in T.13 (p. 444).
The name of the publication should appear in large and small capitals according to Rule 16.1 (pp. 148–49).
Page 633 is the pincite to the article.
Bluebooking Newspapers
Michael Bluth, Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb!, ORANGECOUNTY TRIB., Oct. 30, 2000, at A1. Rule 16.6 (p. 151). Author’s name, as it appears in the article. Article title as it appears in italics. Tribune shortened to Trib. according to T.13 (p. 444). The
name of the publication is in large and small capitals according to Rule 16.1 (pp. 148–49).
Date abbreviated according to T.12 (p. 444). The start page of the article, with an “at” in front. Do not pincite to newspaper articles.
Bluebooking Internet Sources
Rule 18 (p. 164). Articles and Blogs only available on the
internet follow Rule 18.2.2: Douglas Gantenbein, Mad Cows Come Home, SLATE (Jan
5, 2004, 12:10 PM), http://www.slate.com/id/2093396/index.html.
Bluebooking: Introductory Signals
Rule 1.2 (p. 54). [No signal] if cited authority: Directly states proposition; IDs source of quotation; or IDs authority referred to in the text.
E.g., if cited authority states proposition and other authorities do as well, but citation to those authorities is not helpful.
Accord when two or more sources state or support a proposition, but the text only quotes/refers to one; the other sources are introduced by accord.
Bluebooking: Signals
See when cited authority supports the proposition. Used instead of [no signal] when the proposition is not
directly stated by the cited authority, but obviously follows from it.
Use see also when cited authority constitutes additional source material supporting the proposition.
Cf. when cited authority supports a proposition different from the main proposition, but sufficiently analogous to lend support. Literally, cf. means “compare.” Parenthetical explanations are recommended to clarify
relevance to the reader.
Bluebooking: Contradictory Signals
Contra when cited authority states directly the contrary of the proposition.
But see when cited authority clearly supports a proposition contrary to the main proposition.
But cf. when cited authority supports a proposition analogous to the contrary of the main proposition. Explanatory parenthetical strongly recommended.
Bluebooking: Signals Indicating Background & Useful Comparisons
See generally when cited authority presents helpful background material related to the proposition. Explanatory parenthetical is highly encouraged.
Compare X and Y with Z. Comparison of the authorities will offer support or
illustrate the proposition. An explanatory parenthetical following each authority is highly recommended.
Bluebooking: Supra
Use “supra” to refer back to material that has already been fully cited (unless “id.” is appropriate or “supra” is inappropriate for the authority [Rule 4.2, p. 74]). “Supra” generally should not be used to refer to authorities such as
cases, statutes, constitutions, restatements, model codes, or regulations. For other sources, supra generally may be used (see Rule 4.2 for an exhaustive list).
The “supra” form generally consists of the last name of the author of the work, followed by a comma, the word “supra” and the footnote in which the full citation can be found. Indicate any particular manner in which the subsequent citation
differs from the former. Use pincites.
Example: Williams, supra note 18, at 6.
Bluebooking: Infra
Use “infra” to refer to material that appears later in the piece (Rule 3.5, p. 71).
Examples: See discussion infra Parts II.B.2, III.C.1. See infra pp. 106–07. See infra p. 50 and note 100.
Bluebooking: “Hereinafter”
Use “hereinafter” to refer to material that would be cumbersome to cite solely according to traditional short citations or supras (Rule 4.2, p. 74).
Examples: In re Multidistrict Private Civil Treble Damage Antitrust Litig.
Involving Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Equip., 52 F.R.D. 398 (C.D. Cal. 1970) [hereinafter Air Pollution Control Antitrust Case].
Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Hearings Before the Subcomm. On Criminal Justice of the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 95th Cong. 92–93 (1977) [hereinafter Hearings] (statement of Prof. Wayne LaFave). Hearings, supra note 95, at 12.
• Time Management• The packet is an enormous
amount of material• Outline before you write• Leave time to revise• Reserve time for Bluebooking
• Stress Management• Exercise, get sleep, eat right!
Surviving the Competition